Source: Alperovitz, Gar and Sherwin, Martin J. ‘US leaders knew we didn’t have to drop
atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway.’ Los Angeles Times. August 5,
2002 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-
atomic-bombs
How is the source relevant to my project, and is it at the right level?
Newspaper articles are written for a broad and largely well-educated audience, and as such
are the right level for this project. They must be used carefully, as different papers have
different political or ideological agendas, and articles are ultimately written to help sell copies
or generate online traffic, and so may choose a more dramatic angle than a peer-reviewed
academic piece of work.
Based in Los Angeles, the Times is a daily newspaper with the fifth highest circulation in the
USA, and a large international readership. The article was a relevant introduction to
Alperovitz’s approach to counterfactual history and the challenges of arguing about what
could have happened. His article t confirmed my existing ideas that it was morally wrong to
drop the atomic bombs, and so I found it validating and useful.
What is the expertise of the author(s)? Is there any bias?
Alperovitz is a professor of American history, with a PhD from the University of Cambridge
and he has taught at institutions including Harvard. He is an expert and can be relied upon,
however he is famously against the dropping of the bombs and so is biased in interpreting
evidence to show bombing Japan was unnecessary.
How does it link to other sources?
Alperovitz’s views have been extensively debated by other writers, especially Maddox and
Bernstein, who critique much of his writing, as such his views are central to my project.
How has the source allowed me to better understand the complexities of my project?
In validating my ideas, this source gave me confidence to analyse sources in more depth, and
to think critically about historical what ifs and military options besides the use of atomic
bombs.
,Source: Barone, Michael, ‘Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do’ The
Washington Examiner August 7 2013 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bombing-
hiroshima-and-nagasaki-was-the-right-thing-to-do
How is the source relevant to my project, and is it at the right level?
I found this article both useful and provocative. This newspaper article succinctly and clearly
sums up the traditional argument that the bombings were morally right, arguing that using
atomic bombs was the only way to force Japan to surrender other than a bloody land
invasion. In using numerous references and facts, it is useful source at the right level.
What is the expertise of the author(s)? Is there any bias?
Michael Barone is an American right-wing pundit and journalist, best known for writing
about contemporary politics and demographic history. Thought not an expert in WW2, he is
an intelligent and experienced writer, and so is knowledgeable. The source is deliberately
biased, arguing for the dropping of the bombs.
How does it link to other sources?
This is one of two articles published on 7 th and 8th August 2013 to discuss the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both were opinions pieces, arguing for and against the morality of
the bombings. Barone’s piece references a number of other important studies, helping to find
more sources and studies that were extremely important for my project.
How has the source allowed me to better understand the complexities of my project?
In forcing me to consider the case for the bombings being justified, this source helped me to
flesh out my own ideas, and to come to my own independent conclusions. I disagreed with
Barone’s interpretations and assumptions, particularly regarding the Japanese will to fight,
but his eloquent analysis helped me to understand the complexity of the debate.
, Source: Carney, Timothy P. ‘’It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing’ – Why
dropping the A bombs was wrong’ The Washington Examiner August 8, 2013
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-
why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong
How is the source relevant to my project, and is it at the right level?
Like Barone’s article, this piece set out a clear and convincing case using a range of evidence.
I was able to follow references in this piece and find more information, as well as use
Carney’s ideas to back u my own.
What is the expertise of the author(s)? Is there any bias?
Timothy P. Carney is a journalist and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
He has written books about contemporary politics as well as numerous articles for papers
including the Washington Examiner. His expertise in data analysis and research make him
reliable, even thought he is not an historian.
How does it link to other sources?
Carney’s piece was written alongside Barone’s,, and in presenting two deliberately polarised
views the Washington Examiner was able to set out both sides of the debate around the
bombing in an accessible manner.
How has the source allowed me to better understand the complexities of my project?
The source largely covered ideas I already knew but provided some useful further references
and gave me new pieces of evidence to back up my ideas. Looking at both articles together
helped me to think critically about what makes a convincing argument, and how to formulate
my own analysis.
atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway.’ Los Angeles Times. August 5,
2002 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-
atomic-bombs
How is the source relevant to my project, and is it at the right level?
Newspaper articles are written for a broad and largely well-educated audience, and as such
are the right level for this project. They must be used carefully, as different papers have
different political or ideological agendas, and articles are ultimately written to help sell copies
or generate online traffic, and so may choose a more dramatic angle than a peer-reviewed
academic piece of work.
Based in Los Angeles, the Times is a daily newspaper with the fifth highest circulation in the
USA, and a large international readership. The article was a relevant introduction to
Alperovitz’s approach to counterfactual history and the challenges of arguing about what
could have happened. His article t confirmed my existing ideas that it was morally wrong to
drop the atomic bombs, and so I found it validating and useful.
What is the expertise of the author(s)? Is there any bias?
Alperovitz is a professor of American history, with a PhD from the University of Cambridge
and he has taught at institutions including Harvard. He is an expert and can be relied upon,
however he is famously against the dropping of the bombs and so is biased in interpreting
evidence to show bombing Japan was unnecessary.
How does it link to other sources?
Alperovitz’s views have been extensively debated by other writers, especially Maddox and
Bernstein, who critique much of his writing, as such his views are central to my project.
How has the source allowed me to better understand the complexities of my project?
In validating my ideas, this source gave me confidence to analyse sources in more depth, and
to think critically about historical what ifs and military options besides the use of atomic
bombs.
,Source: Barone, Michael, ‘Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do’ The
Washington Examiner August 7 2013 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bombing-
hiroshima-and-nagasaki-was-the-right-thing-to-do
How is the source relevant to my project, and is it at the right level?
I found this article both useful and provocative. This newspaper article succinctly and clearly
sums up the traditional argument that the bombings were morally right, arguing that using
atomic bombs was the only way to force Japan to surrender other than a bloody land
invasion. In using numerous references and facts, it is useful source at the right level.
What is the expertise of the author(s)? Is there any bias?
Michael Barone is an American right-wing pundit and journalist, best known for writing
about contemporary politics and demographic history. Thought not an expert in WW2, he is
an intelligent and experienced writer, and so is knowledgeable. The source is deliberately
biased, arguing for the dropping of the bombs.
How does it link to other sources?
This is one of two articles published on 7 th and 8th August 2013 to discuss the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both were opinions pieces, arguing for and against the morality of
the bombings. Barone’s piece references a number of other important studies, helping to find
more sources and studies that were extremely important for my project.
How has the source allowed me to better understand the complexities of my project?
In forcing me to consider the case for the bombings being justified, this source helped me to
flesh out my own ideas, and to come to my own independent conclusions. I disagreed with
Barone’s interpretations and assumptions, particularly regarding the Japanese will to fight,
but his eloquent analysis helped me to understand the complexity of the debate.
, Source: Carney, Timothy P. ‘’It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing’ – Why
dropping the A bombs was wrong’ The Washington Examiner August 8, 2013
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-
why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong
How is the source relevant to my project, and is it at the right level?
Like Barone’s article, this piece set out a clear and convincing case using a range of evidence.
I was able to follow references in this piece and find more information, as well as use
Carney’s ideas to back u my own.
What is the expertise of the author(s)? Is there any bias?
Timothy P. Carney is a journalist and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
He has written books about contemporary politics as well as numerous articles for papers
including the Washington Examiner. His expertise in data analysis and research make him
reliable, even thought he is not an historian.
How does it link to other sources?
Carney’s piece was written alongside Barone’s,, and in presenting two deliberately polarised
views the Washington Examiner was able to set out both sides of the debate around the
bombing in an accessible manner.
How has the source allowed me to better understand the complexities of my project?
The source largely covered ideas I already knew but provided some useful further references
and gave me new pieces of evidence to back up my ideas. Looking at both articles together
helped me to think critically about what makes a convincing argument, and how to formulate
my own analysis.
